Free home anyone? The Utah court ruled, and this cat just got himself a free casa

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.

[Eugene]

The article says, “MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.” That’s the attorney’s interpretation: even though MERS is written into the note as the beneficiary, it’s really not.

[Eugene]

The article says, “MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.” That’s the attorney’s interpretation: even though MERS is written into the note as the beneficiary, it’s really not.

[Eugene]

The article says, “MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.” That’s the attorney’s interpretation: even though MERS is written into the note as the beneficiary, it’s really not.

[Eugene]

The article says, “MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.” That’s the attorney’s interpretation: even though MERS is written into the note as the beneficiary, it’s really not.

[Eugene]

The article says, “MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.” That’s the attorney’s interpretation: even though MERS is written into the note as the beneficiary, it’s really not.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[SK in CV]

I think we’ve beaten this issue to death. And I think the article is inconclusive. Hopefully we’ll somehow get to see a copy of the trust deed.

But on a whole different subject. I don’t see anywhere in this article that it says that either of these homeowners were in foreclosure or even delinquent. At least one of them hired an attorney to deal with the lender, whatever that means. Maybe they were current and looking for a mod or a short sale. A lot of comments at Mish’s implied they were deadbeats. Might be true. But I don’t see any evidence of that. Makes it even more interesting. Current borrowers suing for quiet title. And winning. At least for now. Stay tuned.

[SK in CV]

I think we’ve beaten this issue to death. And I think the article is inconclusive. Hopefully we’ll somehow get to see a copy of the trust deed.

But on a whole different subject. I don’t see anywhere in this article that it says that either of these homeowners were in foreclosure or even delinquent. At least one of them hired an attorney to deal with the lender, whatever that means. Maybe they were current and looking for a mod or a short sale. A lot of comments at Mish’s implied they were deadbeats. Might be true. But I don’t see any evidence of that. Makes it even more interesting. Current borrowers suing for quiet title. And winning. At least for now. Stay tuned.

[SK in CV]

I think we’ve beaten this issue to death. And I think the article is inconclusive. Hopefully we’ll somehow get to see a copy of the trust deed.

But on a whole different subject. I don’t see anywhere in this article that it says that either of these homeowners were in foreclosure or even delinquent. At least one of them hired an attorney to deal with the lender, whatever that means. Maybe they were current and looking for a mod or a short sale. A lot of comments at Mish’s implied they were deadbeats. Might be true. But I don’t see any evidence of that. Makes it even more interesting. Current borrowers suing for quiet title. And winning. At least for now. Stay tuned.

[SK in CV]

I think we’ve beaten this issue to death. And I think the article is inconclusive. Hopefully we’ll somehow get to see a copy of the trust deed.

But on a whole different subject. I don’t see anywhere in this article that it says that either of these homeowners were in foreclosure or even delinquent. At least one of them hired an attorney to deal with the lender, whatever that means. Maybe they were current and looking for a mod or a short sale. A lot of comments at Mish’s implied they were deadbeats. Might be true. But I don’t see any evidence of that. Makes it even more interesting. Current borrowers suing for quiet title. And winning. At least for now. Stay tuned.

[Author]

Posts